TRS
ConstructionValuation Breakdown
Construction and industrial firms have characteristics of both cyclical businesses (lumpy project-based revenue) and growth companies (expanding order books). This model blends two approaches 50/50: EV/EBITDA valuation (captures current earning power relative to peers) and FCF-based DCF (captures future cash generation potential). If EV/EBITDA produces a negative value (debt exceeds enterprise value), only DCF is used.
Valuation Track Record
Retroactive intrinsic value vs actual close price — TRS
Earnings Quality
Fiscal year 2024
Financial Forensics
Beneish M-Score · 2024
TRS exhibits a Beneish M-Score of -1.6137, indicating a low likelihood of earnings manipulation. However, the earnings quality metrics show significant variability, particularly in cash conversion and revenue recognition, which raises concerns.
- Earnings Quality Score of 73.4/100 is decent but cash conversion is low at 43.0/100, indicating potential issues in converting earnings to cash.
- The SGI of 1.0643 suggests a growth rate higher than the industry average, which could be unsustainable.
- The DSRI of 1.0956 is close to 1, indicating that inventory levels are in line with sales, which is a positive sign.
- The receivables quality score is perfect at 100.0/100, indicating strong management of receivables.
The ownership structure is concentrated, with the top five shareholders holding 80.3% of the company. This concentration may lead to governance risks and potential conflicts of interest.
Investors should monitor cash flow closely and assess the sustainability of growth rates. Consider a cautious approach to investment until clearer trends in cash conversion and revenue recognition emerge.
Generated by AI based on quantitative data. Not financial advice.
Quantitative Scores
Key Ratios
Company Overview
// OWNERSHIP_NETWORK
> mapping common ownership for TRS — hover nodes for intel, click to navigate